> Adding a layer of particles-guided-by-the-waves on top of that is an extra complication that can only be justified (if at all) in terms of the intuitive appeal of their resemblance to macroscopic physics.
This "Bohmian mechanics is Many-Worlds in disguise" is simply false [1]. The axiomatic basis is completely different, and this is apparent because with Bohmian mechanics you can easily derive the Born rule, and as a result, it also makes a new prediction that isn't allowed in typical QM, quantum non-equilibrium [2]. Deriving the Born rule with MWI is a hotly debated open problem.
> This "Bohmian mechanics is Many-Worlds in disguise" is simply false [1].
Saying "clearly" a lot does not convince me, and seems to be all that paper does.
> The axiomatic basis is completely different, and this is apparent because with Bohmian mechanics you can easily derive the Born rule, and as a result, it also makes a new prediction that isn't allowed in typical QM, quantum non-equilibrium [2].
You've contradicted yourself: a quantum non-equilibrium condition would be one that did not follow the Born rule. Excluding quantum non-equilibrium requires an additional rule and looks to be much the same problem as deriving the Born rule under MWI. Were quantum non-equilibrium to be observed, that would be major evidence that our current understanding of QM is wrong; however, by the same token, our non-observation of it must count as evidence against a theory that predicts it.
This "Bohmian mechanics is Many-Worlds in disguise" is simply false [1]. The axiomatic basis is completely different, and this is apparent because with Bohmian mechanics you can easily derive the Born rule, and as a result, it also makes a new prediction that isn't allowed in typical QM, quantum non-equilibrium [2]. Deriving the Born rule with MWI is a hotly debated open problem.
[1] https://arxiv.org/abs/0811.0810
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_non-equilibrium